Sex abuse victims and their families deserve right to share stories without consequence
Reporting the stories of sex assault victims is sensitive and complex, but there’s one thing these victims’ families agree on — law reform should always seek consultation with them first, writes Nina Funnell.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
When Juliette first reported an abduction and attempted rape to police in 2001, she had no idea that the description she had just given was a perfect match for a sex offender who had been bailed just weeks earlier.
His name was Adrian Bayley, and years later he would go on to abduct and kill a young journalist, Jill Meagher.
For the past 20 years though, Juliette has maintained her privacy. She has shunned the media and only ever revealed the horrific details of the attack to her absolute closest friends and family.
Now, however, Juliette feels she couldn’t live with herself if she didn’t speak out and share her story.
That’s because on Tuesday the Victorian upper house will debate whether or not to pass legislation that make it an automatic crime for anyone to ever publicly name sexual homicide victims, such as Jill Meagher, Eurydice Dixon and Aiia Maasarwe.
As of right now, it is lawful to publish the identities of deceased sexual assault victims without need of a court order. (This point was confirmed during a hearing last Friday, where Judge Michael McInerney stated, unequivocally, that existing restrictions on naming living rape victims, “[do] not apply to a deceased person.”)
Not all families will want to, and many avoid media glare. But if the proposed Bill is passed, it will radically alter the status quo and those family members who wish to name their loved ones in public, or campaign on their behalf, will lose the right to do so.
Media outlets who break the law by naming deceased rape victims could be slapped with an $8,000 fine each time they do so, regardless of the family’s consent.
Even worse, grieving relatives and other individuals could face up to four months jail, heavy fines, or both, if their own social media posts were to break the proposed law.
This includes the parents and other family members of clergy abuse victims who have suicided.
The only exception would be if the victim’s relatives went back to court — at their own expense and inconvenience — to obtain a court order, so they could continue naming their loved one in public. That process could easily cost upwards of $10,000 per family.
Indeed, having supported multiple living survivors through a similar process as part of the #LetUsSpeak campaign, I am yet to see that process not cause harm. It is lengthy, distressing and traumatic, not least because it reproduces feelings of powerlessness.
And that’s in cases where the survivor is alive and can tell us — and the courts — exactly what they want.
I shudder to think what will happen when the victim is dead, their wishes are unknown, and any number of family members make a claim as to what should happen.
The reality, I suspect, is that already grieving families will end up tearing each other apart, especially since people process grief and trauma very differently. And this doesn’t even begin to consider what will happen in instances where the offender is a family member.
In those situations, we often find that certain individuals within the family “side” with the offender, out of fear, loyalty, or grooming which they themselves have experienced.
In these cases, where families are divided, we should expect the court battles to turn into a lawyers’ picnic, where no-one truly wins.
Yet to add insult to injury, the government didn’t even bother to consult with grieving relatives who would be impacted by this radical change to the law, before they introduced the Bill to parliament last month.
Understandably, Jill Meagher’s mother, Edith McKeon has written that she is “f … ing fuming” that no one was contacted and she intends to “fight it”.
Over the past few weeks, I’ve spoken to countless families of sexual assault victims who have passed away through one means or another.
While it is clear that these issues are sensitive and complex, there is one point which every impacted family I’ve spoken to has agreed on: law reform of this nature should never take place without thorough consultation with the families first.
In the last 24 hours, more than a thousand letters have been sent to members of parliament, from members of the public pleading with them to do just that.
Whether or not they will listen is unclear. But for Juliette, we cannot afford to simply erase the names of victims without even having a discussion about it.
“I asked myself, how will I feel years down the track when I might have been in this position to say something? And I don’t want to be one of those good people that did nothing.
“[People] marched in the streets for Jill when Jill died. Well, women should be marching in the streets now.
“I want Jill’s family to know that I’m doing this, putting myself through this, for them. Because the thought that they [and] other people can’t speak her name is just so horrific. Jill deserves justice. For the rest of all of our lives.”
Nina Funnell is the creator of the #LetUsSpeak campaign in partnership with Marque Lawyers, Rape & Sexual Assault Research & Advocacy and EROC Australia.
MORE OPINION:
HOW FAMILIES HELP SUBURBAN KILLERS SNEAK THROUGH CRACKS